" drill here, and in 2030, there will be a minimal impact on what is a global supply problem...and pay any, I repeat, any environmental cost!"

Just a thought: difficult and complex problems are rarely, if ever, solved by simplistic slogans.

For a more deatiled and logical suggestion I would recommend reading Professor Richard Lestor's (of MIT) recent speach to the National Governors Association :

Energy Innovation: What’s Here and What’s Coming

Prof. Richard K. Lester Massachusetts Institute of Technology

--remarks prepared for presentation to the National Governors Association Centennial Meeting Philadelphia, PA July 14, 2008

Governor Pawlenty, Governor Rendell, thank you for the privilege of speaking at this historic meeting.

I would like to discuss the role of technological innovation in solving our energy problem, and, especially, the important question of what role for policy – state as well as federal – in accelerating the innovation process.

I want to begin with three simple messages.

Recent progress in the clean technology field has been substantial. New kinds of generating capacity are being added --in some cases, notably wind, at an impressive rate. Costs are coming down, albeit sometimes more slowly than was promised.

Investment in next-generation technologies is increasing. The strong interest of the venture capital community is particularly welcome.

Ambitious targets are being set. Some of the most effective policy interventions are occurring at the state and local levels. California has been a leader. In my own state of Massachusetts, important clean energy legislation was enacted just this month. Other states are on a similar path.

That said --and here is my first message – these activities aren’t remotely close to the scale of effort that will be required to solve the problem.

My second message concerns the future of nuclear power and of coal-fired electricity with carbon capture and storage.

These two options won’t win any popularity contests, and some would fiercely dispute that they belong in the clean technology category at all. But without large-scale deployment of both, especially in the critical 2020 to 2050 timeframe, it is unlikely --to the point of implausibility --that the world will be able to avoid serious and perhaps even disastrous ecological and economic damage from climate change.

Coal is an abundant, relatively low-cost energy resource that is widely distributed around the world, and in the US we depend on it for half of our electricity. We cannot continue to burn it as we have, but we cannot afford to turn our back on it either. We must therefore find ways to capture carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants and to store the carbon dioxide safely underground, at reasonable cost.

Nuclear power is the only carbon-free energy source that is already contributing on a large scale and that is also expandable with few inherent limits. Public opinion has been gradually shifting in its favor, but the failure to demonstrate and implement an effective final disposal strategy for high-level waste remains a tremendous barrier to public acceptance, no matter how many expert panels and commissions opine that this is a technically feasible task.

The Yucca Mountain project may or may not meet the regulatory criteria that will eventually be applied to it. But there is no doubt that we can do better, and doing better should be a high priority.

No serious person would dispute the importance of these two innovation goals: affordable carbon capture and storage, and safe, implementable high-level nuclear waste disposal. But my basic message here is that in both cases current U.S. policies are putting our nation at least partly on the wrong track, and that this is almost certain to cause further delays in the availability of viable coal and nuclear power --delays that we can ill afford.

My third message is perhaps best conveyed by the poet Wallace Stevens, born not far from here in Reading, PA. Stevens wrote of ‘the lunatics of one idea . . . . in a world of ideas’. He was referring to ideologues and fanatics, who, blinded by their single idea, couldn’t see the world around them. But he might as well have been talking about the energy debate, where such lunacy has unfortunately been all too common.

The fact is that there is no single idea, no silver bullet, that will solve the problem. First and foremost, we need new ways to use energy more efficiently. But very likely also much bigger contributions from solar, wind, biomass, nuclear, and also advanced fossil fuel technologies. In our current circumstances, we can ill afford the self-indulgence of those who --however well-intentioned – like to tell the world that they are anti-this, or anti-that.

***
So far I’ve been talking about our energy problem. But this is incorrect. Because we really have three separate problems, each on its own very difficult to solve. And because the solutions to one will sometimes make the others worse, the overall difficulty is more than additive – the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

The first problem is the projected increase in the use of energy. Unless the world goes into a deep and prolonged recession, by the middle of this century global energy use will likely have doubled, and electricity use will have tripled, placing great pressure on energy supplies and prices.

And in case there is any doubt: whatever role speculators may be playing in the current oil price spike, the underlying issue here is growing demand.

This is an era in which hundreds of millions of people, perhaps even billions, are lifting themselves out of poverty into what we in this country might recognize as at least a way-station on the road to a middle-class standard of living, all within the span of a few decades. This is an economic accomplishment that has no precedent in all of human history, and we should celebrate it.

One of the consequences is sharply increased energy use. But in case anyone thinks that a tripling of electricity demand by mid-century implies irresponsible, profligate consumption, I point out that this would mean, roughly speaking, that the richest billion of the world’s population at that time would be using electricity at about the same rate that the average American uses it today, the middle 7 billion would be using it at a rate that the average Chinese is likely to reach in just a few years (or a bit more than a third of the average American’s usage today), and the poorest billion would still have no electricity at all. That is what a tripling of electricity demand by mid-century will mean.

The second problem is that for at least the next several decades the world will remain heavily dependent on the Persian Gulf for its premium fuels.

More oil and gas will certainly be found and produced in other parts of the world – though perhaps not at a rate sufficient to offset the decline in existing fields. In any case these new supplies will generally be more costly, and because of the twist of geological fate which led much of the world’s low-cost oil and gas resources to be deposited in the Gulf region, that volatile area will continue to dominate the global supply picture for the foreseeable future.

The third problem is of course that of climate change. This may or may not be the most serious problem of all, but it is certainly the most complex when we consider the scientific, technological, economic and political aspects together – as of course we must.

Much has now been learned about this problem, but many major uncertainties remain. So when the question is asked: how fast should we move to try to slow climate change? – the answer isn’t obvious.

Figuring it out will mean finding a strategy that strikes a balance between the increased economic cost of actions to reduce emissions, on the one hand, and the benefits of those actions (in terms of ecological and economic damage averted in the future), on the other. Unfortunately almost every element in that equation is uncertain. What is certain, though, is that the longer we wait to take action, the more costly the consequences will be. The clock is ticking, and it won’t stop ticking simply because we can’t or won’t decide what to do.

The best chance we have – perhaps the only chance --of solving these problems, of breaking out of this triple straitjacket of price, climate, and security pressures, is to accelerate the introduction of new technologies for energy supply and use and deploy them on a very large scale.

Accelerate relative to what? Relative to what would happen if we left innovation entirely to the forces of the marketplace. This may be an obvious point, but it is still worth emphasizing.

Energy innovation is different from other kinds of innovation for a very important reason. The major impetus for it comes from outside the marketplace. Two of our three big problems – energy security and climate change – are not now factored into the great majority of the millions of decisions made in the marketplace every day by suppliers and consumers of energy.

So, even if innovation can help solve those problems – and there is no doubt that it can --the economic incentives created by the play of market forces alone won’t be enough to bring it about. The question is not whether to augment these forces, but how.

Some are calling for a crash program by the federal government -a Manhattan Project or an Apollo Project for energy innovation.

These calls helpfully communicate the urgency and the scale of the challenge. But in another sense they are a distraction because, if we take them literally, we will end up solving the wrong problem.

In both the Apollo and Manhattan Projects there was a single, clearly-defined (though high-risk) technical goal. There was also just one customer – the federal government. Success meant achieving a single implementation of the new technology. In both cases this took just a few years to achieve. And cost was essentially no object.

Not one of these things applies to the case of energy. Here we have multiple and sometimes conflicting goals (lower prices, reduced carbon emissions, increased security). We have many different kinds of customers – from individual tenants and homeowners to giant industrial energy users. We have multiple time-scales, from a few years to many decades. Success will come not from a single implementation but only if the technology is adopted by many firms, or by many more individuals. And finally, energy is a commodity, so cost is crucial.

In this last sense, the upcoming energy revolution is not only not like the Manhattan project, it isn’t even like the digital revolution, to which it is sometimes also compared. It is actually much harder. Because energy innovations, unlike many digital technologies, usually must compete against an incumbent technology in an existing market, and this imposes tough, nonnegotiable requirements on cost competitiveness, on quality, and on reliability from the very beginning.

So, if we don’t need a Manhattan Project for energy innovation, what do we need?

One thing we surely need is a strategy for energy prices. Many experts argue that the greatest spur to innovation would be to make sure that the full costs of energy provision and use are incorporated in the market price paid by consumers, including the cost of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions or their consequences, and the full cost of ensuring uninterrupted flows of oil from the Middle East.
Some argue, in fact, that if only we could get the price right, the market will do the rest --that a properly adjusted energy price will call forth the necessary innovations by making new technologies more attractive in the marketplace.

Price is very important, but it won’t be sufficient on its own.

Partly this is because we aren’t likely to ‘get the price right’ in that sense. For example, while the U.S. will probably have a carbon price at some point, perhaps even quite soon, this is sure to have escape ramps, exemptions for critical sectors, and other loopholes that will make it fall well short of what the economic models prescribe --that is, a uniform price across the economy which ramps up at the economically optimal rate. Even more elusive, of course, will be the ideal of a carbon price that is harmonized across the globe.

But equally important, a pricing approach won’t be sufficient because it won’t address the rest of the energy innovation system --by which I mean the entire complex of direct support, indirect incentives, regulations, public and private research and educational institutions, codes, standards, and markets within which new technologies are developed and taken up by energy suppliers and users.

In the coming decades this system will be called upon to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars of mostly private investment in innovative technologies, make hundreds of sites available for the construction of controversial new energy facilities, and every year train tens of thousands of young people with a strong background in energy systems engineering.

The evidence of the last three decades tells us that the current innovation system has fallen short. Yet the demands on it going forward will be much greater than anything we have yet seen. This system is in need of a major overhaul.

This effort must address the entire innovation process, including obstacles to commercial demonstration, to early adoption, and to large-scale deployment. This is not just about research and development.

There is no doubt that funding on a much larger scale will be needed for both fundamental research and technology development. Both government and private investment in energy R&D are far below where they should be.

But the whole point is to achieve scale in technology applications. And without attention to critical bottlenecks downstream of the R&D stage --including commercial technology demonstrations, which have often been poorly handled by the federal government --many of the potential benefits of more R&D funding won’t be realized.

In short, we must be as creative and rigorous in our thinking about how to redesign the institutions for innovation as we will need to be about the innovations themselves.

For example, we must find a way to overcome the obstacles to sound innovation strategies created by the annual government budgeting and appropriations process, by federal procurement regulations, and by shifting political winds.

Here is one idea: Suppose we adopted the principle that the public good part of the energy innovation system beyond basic research (which the Department of Energy manages quite well) should be directly funded by industry sales, rather than by general tax revenues.

Suppose that these funds were collected in the form of a small fee applied to all end-user sales in a given industry segment – electricity service, for example, or gas service --ifthe majority of the firms in that segment voted to do so (Congress would probably have to approve this.) A fee of less than three tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour – or about 60 cents per week for the average household – would generate an annual stream of revenue five times larger than the total annual DOE budget for applied energy research, development and demonstration.

Suppose, then, that the firms in this industry organized themselves into interest groups, or innovation boards, which would each be responsible for a different technological pathway – smart grid technologies, carbon capture and storage, next generation photovoltaics, and so on.

Each board would request proposals to fund work in its domain from businesses, public research laboratories, universities, and others. To qualify to receive these funds, bidders would have to agree to put the resulting intellectual property into the public domain – available to everyone.
At the beginning of each cycle, every firm in the industry would distribute the fees collected from its customers among these boards based on their work programs and its own priorities. If, say, a utility was particularly eager to see progress in carbon capture and sequestration, it might allocate funds to the carbon capture and sequestration board. Or, if it was concerned about skilled manpower shortages, it would allocate funds to the energy education and training board, which might have an ongoing scholarship program for power engineering students.

If a utility was unhappy with the progress being made by one board, it could redirect its funding to another. Or it could itself decide to form a board in a new area and fund that, perhaps in conjunction with other firms. It would in any case have to commit all of its innovation fees to one board or another.

Such a scheme would create a guaranteed stream of revenues for energy innovation, while avoiding both the Federal appropriations process and the problem of underinvestment by private free riders. It would ensure that decisions on what to do and who should be funded to do it would be made by those closest to the energy marketplace. And by requiring IP to be shared, it would avoid unfair competitive advantage.
***
Another idea: There is great potential for small, entrepreneurial firms to contribute to innovation in the energy sector, as they do in other industries.

But the energy industries are dominated by large incumbent providers who are often slow to embrace transformative or disruptive innovations. These firms typically have tightly integrated supply chains and close ties to government regulators, and they rely on highly-regulated pipelines or wires to deliver energy services to end users. This creates a formidable barrier between entrepreneurial newcomers and end users, and tends to force innovation towards the upstream end of the value chain.

But many opportunities for innovation lie right at the interface with the end-user. Most consumers are indifferent to energy itself – that is, to BTUs or kilowatt hours. What they care about are the services that energy enables: affordable comfort, mobility, lighting, and so on. The provision of energy is almost always just one part of a larger set-up in which a value-added service is delivered to the consumer.

Finding opportunities to combine energy services in creative new ways with other services and products is exactly where smaller entrepreneurial firms can be expected to shine. We need to find ways to let these firms compete and grow in this important innovation space.

***
What role for the states in all this?

Decisive progress on the major energy issues will require decisive action at the federal level. It cannot be achieved by states alone. And the longer the delay in serious leadership at the federal level, the more difficult it will be to harmonize conflicting policies.

But many of the relevant authorities – to regulate utilities, to make land-use decisions, to set building codes and zoning requirements, to support public education, and so on – reside at the state and local levels. So the task will require a partnership of federal, state, and local governments.

There is more than enough to do here for everyone. Whole new industries are likely to develop in support of the energy transition, and state-level policies promoting innovation take-up and the development of a skilled workforce will be vital.

Jobs will be generated at every skill level – not just the top end of the range --and since many of these jobs must be located close to the point of energy use, they are at less risk of outsourcing to lower-wage economies.

Just as one example, let’s suppose that by the year 2030 the U.S. was generating 5% of its electricity from small-scale photovoltaic installations – an ambitious goal, though not as ambitious as some recent targets. A rough estimate is that this would create twenty years of steady local work for 45,000-50,000 installers – mostly electricians and construction workers – and perhaps double that number if we include indirect labor. About two hundred thousand additional jobs would be created upstream in the PV value chain – some of which would also be located here in the U.S. And of course this doesn’t include the other 95% of the power sector, where many more new jobs are also likely to be created.
***

And so, to conclude, it is long past time for serious federal leadership on energy innovation. But it is also time to move beyond the Manhattan/Apollo Project metaphor. A better metaphor might be a domestic Marshall Plan for energy innovation. The original Manhattan project involved a relatively small number of people working in secret. The original Marshall Plan took everyone, working together, to rebuild the broken European economy.

Let us recapture that inspired exercise of American leadership at home. As we did once before on foreign soil, let us combine a vision of what can be with a command of hard facts and data to build an effective system for energy innovation in every one of our United States.
Thank you again for the honor of being with you this morning.
***

Richard K. Lester
Richard Lester is director of the Industrial Performance Center (IPC) and a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research focuses on industrial innovation and the public and private management of technology. In recent years he has led several major studies of national and regional productivity, competitiveness and innovation performance commissioned by governments and industrial groups around the world. His latest books include: Innovation – The Missing Dimension (Harvard University Press, 2005), co-authored with Michael J. Piore; Making Technology Work: Applications in Energy and the Environment (Cambridge University Press, 2004), co-authored with John M. Deutch; and The Productive Edge: A New Strategy for Economic Growth (W.W. Norton, 2000). His new book on the role of universities in local and regional innovation systems will be published by Princeton University Press next year.
Professor Lester is also active in research on energy technology innovation, and co-teaches a popular MIT course on “Applications of Technology in Energy and the Environment”. He is a co-author of the recent MIT reports on The Future of Nuclear Power (2003) and The Future of Coal (2007), and has published widely on the management and control of nuclear technology. He is currently leading the Energy Innovation Pathways Project, an interdisciplinary MIT assessment of the capabilities of the U.S. energy innovation system.

I also saw Algore on Meet The Press today and Tom Brokaw had asked about his big house and teh energy use there. Gore said, "Well, we're not prefect but it's not just about how much is used, it's about the carbon footprint. We use green energy, from wind and solar sources."

That's interesting- when you buy energy from a utility, is it possible to pick and choose the source of that power?

I didn't think so.

Jorski

07-21-2008, 12:35 AM

That's interesting- when you buy energy from a utility, is it possible to pick and choose the source of that power?

I didn't think so.

Well not exactly; however, there are a number of organizations (or re-sellers) that you can buy your electricity from, at a slightly higher than market price, that support wind projects and green energy production, so while you cannot track each jewel of energy and its' source, you can effectively be creating green energy as you consume energy.

An example here in Canada is this company: http://http://www.bullfrogpower.com/ (http://www.bullfrogpower.com/)

Why not just drill in the Bakken Oil Formation?

As for the Bakken Oil formation,well, it has been drilled since the early 1970s. Only recently, with horizontal drilling technology has any meaningful oil been pumped. Bottom line, there is a fair amount of oil there, but relatively small amounts of recoverable oil. This is highly porous ground, where you use water to force the oil out, so you get a small percentage of the oil that you find.

Studies suggest that you could get about six months worth of current US oil consumption out of this formation, spread out over about 20 years. Oh yeah, and a good chunk of it is in Canada.

Supporting green energy as it's used, not creating it and maybe you can buy energy from different organizations but I can't. WE Energies has this part of the state locked up and we're pretty well screwed, the way they have it worked out with the Public Service Commission. They recently sold a nuclear power plant for close to a billion dollars and within six months, they asked the PSC for a rate increase, which they got. We is also the natural gas company for this part of the state and they just came out with another rate hike, based on high than expected natural gas prices.

The other major energy company in Wisconsin is building a wind farm, which can sell to WE, but WE is just too much of a juggernaut.

My point about Gore saying that "it's all about the carbon footprint" and "we buy green energy" is just him trying to make the fact that he has a huge house that uses a ton of energy into a non-issue. Buying carbon credits from others doesn't mean he uses less energy, it just makes it equivalent to him paying part of someone else's bill by running an extension cord to their outdoor receptical and proudly showing off his low energy bill.

jimmer2880

07-21-2008, 06:51 AM

I love all these people who say that it'll take 20 years for us to feel a minimal impact. Yet, the price of crude oil is based on speculation. We already saw a small dip in crude prices when Bush recinded the excutive ban on off-shore drilling.

Even more interesting, is that nobody is listening to the oil companies who are saying they can start pumping crude in 13 months.

Jorski

07-21-2008, 12:52 PM

I love all these people who say that it'll take 20 years for us to feel a minimal impact. Yet, the price of crude oil is based on speculation. We already saw a small dip in crude prices when Bush recinded the excutive ban on off-shore drilling.

They say that, because it's true.

There is zero eveidence that the price of oil has pulled because of Bush's announcement. Are you saying that the price will not go up now despite his announcement ?

Yoy say that the price of oil is based on speculation; yet, offer no eveidence to support that claim. Here is a news flash, the price of oil, just like the price of EVERYTHING, is based upon supply and demand.

Ric

07-21-2008, 01:12 PM

They say that, because it's true.

There is zero eveidence that the price of oil has pulled because of Bush's announcement. Are you saying that the price will not go up now despite his announcement ?

Yoy say that the price of oil is based on speculation; yet, offer no eveidence to support that claim. Here is a news flash, the price of oil, just like the price of EVERYTHING, is based upon supply and demand.
while some can concentrate on decreasing demand, what's wrong with increasing supply?

JimN

07-21-2008, 01:34 PM

"Here is a news flash, the price of oil, just like the price of EVERYTHING, is based upon supply and demand."

Here's another news flash- if you can make people believe the supply will decrease, you can get them to pay almost any price for whatever it is that they want. Now, what is that called?

Also, intentionally pulling the supply back will cause the price to increase, even though the actual supply could remain unchanged. In some cases, they decrease the supply because they want to, not because they have to.

JimN

07-21-2008, 01:37 PM

"while some can concentrate on decreasing demand, what's wrong with increasing supply?"

If they do that, they won't be able to rake in 4 times as much per barrel for something they know everyone needs and will pay almost any price to get.

One year ago Saturday, the national average price for gas was $3.029/gallon.

Jorski

07-21-2008, 03:02 PM

Here's another news flash- if you can make people believe the supply will decrease, you can get them to pay almost any price for whatever it is that they want. Now, what is that called?

No one has to get people to believe anything. The facts are, that as the price has tripled, supply has not risen. Demand is clearly highly inelastic. That is due to the physical limits of our planet, not some media campaign, or oil company conspiracy or speculators.

People are paying this high of a price for oil because they (we) are highly dependant upon oil and there is not a viable substitute. You want to fix the problem, you have a couple of choices. Develop alternatives. Decrease demand. Increase supply.

Increasing supply, is futile in the face of the decline rates of the major oil fields in the world. The scale and feasibility of the ideas posted (Alaska, Off-shore, Bakken) are tiny drops as compared to these decline rates. Further, the problem is our addiction to oil, and its' impact upon the environment - trying to increase supply is just giving alcahol to alcaholics.

The longer we focus on ways to maintain the status quo, the worse our situation will get. Jimn, I can tell from your comments that you are in the oil company conspiracy camp. The problem with your theory is that most of the oil in this world is state owned, they lack a profit motive; infact; many of them sell to governments (their own) who inturn subsidize the price that they sell the oil for), this is the opposite of profit motive.

Want further eveidence? Exxon, is spending billions of dollars to buy back their own stock. Know why ? Because the cheapest oil that they can find is on their own balance sheet. There is no vast, cheap source of oil out there. The era of cheap oil is over, and the sooner we all face that fact the better.

TX.X-30 fan

07-21-2008, 03:15 PM

30 years to have any impact on supply???? Come on that is just dumb. This is all wacko environmental crap, always some reason not to drill. If Bush and congress said the US would start immediately to get domestic energy from all our sources, build solar and wind and we are starting tomorrow the world price of oil would drop in half in one day.

We would also have all we need in less than 5 years.

Further, the problem is our addiction to oil, and its' impact upon the environment - trying to increase supply is just giving alcahol to alcaholics.

This should be in your mind as you read anything jorski posts. Its a political movement plain and simple. We are here because of 30 years of congress shutting down domestic refining and production.

Jorski

07-21-2008, 03:18 PM

30 years to have any impact on supply???? Come on that is just dumb

With all due respect TX-X30, you need to learn a lot more about drilling and exploration, and the time and limits involved in the exercise.

If Bush and congress said the US would start immediately to get domestic energy from all our sources, build solar and wind and we are starting tomorrow the world price of oil would drop in half in one day.

Same comment about how prices work...by the way it will take an enormous amount of OIL to build out wind and solar. Just the facts of life.

We would also have all we need in less than 5 years.

Show me one new oil field, just one, that has been put into production (never mind the time to actually find, define, and prove up the reserves. The time to prove economic feasibilty and raise capital. The limits of the fleet of drilling rigs, and offshore platforms, if you could lease one - if not you have to build it you know. What about location? Building and/or connecting to pipelines, or contracting available tankers, aqcuiring land rights...I could go on, but if you think that there can be a significant change in the supply of oil in 5 years well, I have got some swamp land to sell you.

TX.X-30 fan

07-21-2008, 03:24 PM

Its the limits in place that creates the time problem, with all due respect.

Jorski

07-21-2008, 03:26 PM

It is the geophysical limits...not regulatory limits that are the main problem

TX.X-30 fan

07-21-2008, 03:43 PM

Offshore yes longer with platforms having to be built or drilling ships. Have you ever seen a land based well, site prep to drilling to production can be as little as a few months.

Ric

07-21-2008, 04:37 PM

30 years to have any impact on supply???? Come on that is just dumb. This is all wacko environmental crap, always some reason not to drill. If Bush and congress said the US would start immediately to get domestic energy from all our sources, build solar and wind and we are starting tomorrow the world price of oil would drop in half in one day.

We would also have all we need in less than 5 years.

Further, the problem is our addiction to oil, and its' impact upon the environment - trying to increase supply is just giving alcahol to alcaholics.

This should be in your mind as you read anything jorski posts. Its a political movement plain and simple. We are here because of 30 years of congress shutting down domestic refining and production.

I have a problem with that one too jorski. If we are talking supply and demand, that's fine but that has nothing to do with "impact on the environment". You know that

Jorski

07-21-2008, 05:59 PM

Congress has shut down refining you say? Prove it!

For the record - although facts NEVER seem to interfere with these discussions on this board -there has been exactly one application to build a new refinery in the last thirty years, and it was APPROVED. That refinery never got built, the investors didn't think they would make enough money to justify the investment.

The problem with refining is that the economics of refining suck. That's why they don't get built. Go look at the refining results over the last few quarters, and show me that there is a shortage of refining capacity. By the way they ALL lost money.

Listen TX-X30, and try to pay attention this time: I am not part of ANY political movement - got it? I just deal with the facts and data that I can find, and I have spent a significant amount of time studying both enrgy and the environment. BTW, I have seen many land based oil rigs/ fields, and let me tell you from exploration stage to setting up the rig on a new claim takes one hell of a lot longer than you are suggesting.

If you follow your drill/drill/drill course of action, it is a mugs game; and, while it would certainly serve the environment better to get off of fossil fuels as much as possible, it would serve the U.S. economics interests even more. You simply are unable to produce the oil that you require. As a result, the longer you fool yourself into believing that there is enough domestic oil to "solve the problem in 5 years" the worse off your nation will be, and the more beholden to foreign countries you will be.

Honestly, have you seen what is going on? The oil producing countries are buying everything in your country, they control Citibank, they just bought the Chrysler building...I could go on, but your way of thinking is fueling your national energy crisis, not solving it.

bbymgr

07-21-2008, 06:41 PM

Jorski is not part of a Political Movement.......... but I do believe he is part of the Financial Investor Conspiracy. He just wants this "Bull" market to continue so that he can make more money.

ProTour X9

07-21-2008, 07:21 PM

Just freeball thinking out loud...

Lets go back to horses for 150 years or so, then everything will go back the way it was, and we can start all over again.:)

Jorski

07-21-2008, 09:35 PM

**Jorski is not part of a Political Movement.......... but I do believe he is part of the Financial Investor Conspiracy. He just wants this "Bull" market to continue so that he can make more money.**

Actually, kind of liked that one:D

That being said, I am long oil and natural gas because that is what the data and the geophysical science indicates will make me money. You should understand though, it is just as easy for me to go short something that will likely go down, as it is to be long something that will likely to go up.

I have no bias about direction and require neither bull nor bear market to make money in the market. For example, I have been short the US dollar for years, and have been short financials for some time. I have also been long a non-bank financial, that happens be betting against the mortgage guarantors and banks through credit default swaps.

So there you go. I am sure that in about 10 seconds I will be called a commy, or a socialist. That's fine, just thought that I would let you know how I work so you can judge my biases.

It makes people feel more comfortable if they can shoot the messenger, but trust me, I don't have a dog in this fight in terms of pre-judgement either politically or economically. But, I will bet on a sure thing.

The more you learn about oil supply, the more you will come to understand that my position is like betting on rust. It is only a matter of when, not "if".

bbymgr

07-21-2008, 10:18 PM

No bias here Jorski....... If the rolls were reversed, I bet most of us would do the same as you. More power to ya.

Ric

07-22-2008, 11:37 AM

Jorski, you seem like a smart fella. I am not calling you a socialist per se, but I still have trouble with your statement that the environment is somehow part of supply and demand... Please elaborate. I mean if you are saying that regulation is part of supply and demand, I think you are hitting on X30's main concerns... If not, how is the price problem the result of our addiction and it's impact on the environment?

30 years to have any impact on supply???? Come on that is just dumb. This is all wacko environmental crap, always some reason not to drill. If Bush and congress said the US would start immediately to get domestic energy from all our sources, build solar and wind and we are starting tomorrow the world price of oil would drop in half in one day.

We would also have all we need in less than 5 years.

Further, the problem is our addiction to oil, and its' impact upon the environment - trying to increase supply is just giving alcahol to alcaholics.

This should be in your mind as you read anything jorski posts. Its a political movement plain and simple. We are here because of 30 years of congress shutting down domestic refining and production.

JimN

07-22-2008, 01:10 PM

If speculation isn't part of this, why are they investigatint it on Capitol Hill- to avoid looking guilty for a pricing problem that affects the whole world?

C'mon.

Arguing about this is like having a room full of economists- there's never total agreement. Might be time to stick a fork in it.

BTW- T.Boone Pickens is in Congress, talking about wind power.

Jorski

07-22-2008, 01:34 PM

Jorski, you seem like a smart fella. I am not calling you a socialist per se, but I still have trouble with your statement that the environment is somehow part of supply and demand... Please elaborate. I mean if you are saying that regulation is part of supply and demand, I think you are hitting on X30's main concerns... If not, how is the price problem, our addiction and it's impact on the environment?

No, not at all what I am saying. First, let's back up. The science says (and I know you guys don't like it) that we are experiencing global warming and it is caused by carbon emmissions. Now, I have never said that the environment has ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Just that trying to extend oil's run is folly BOTH in terms of available supply, and in terms of the environment.

To be clear, the environment has nothing to do with our ability to find and produce oil. It is just one additional argument against that course of action. As is the fact that you are sending 700 billion dollars per to foreign countries to fund your oil defecit.

The main probelm in terms of drilling is one of scale. The scale of what you can find, and when it will come into production is miniature as compared to the decline rates of existing monster fields and the relentles growth in global demand.

Just one more point for TX-X30, go back and read the thread. I never said thirty years to affect supply. I did say that it would take roughly until 2030, so 22 years, meaning, approximately twenty years or so. I said that because, it takes about 10 years get a field into production. These oil fields don't just pump at peak production, that takes about 10 more years, and then they go into decline. While there are exceptions, that is the most common case.

Anyhow, no agenda, either political or social.

Jorski

07-22-2008, 01:37 PM

If speculation isn't part of this, why are they investigatint it on Capitol Hill- to avoid looking guilty for a pricing problem that affects the whole world?

They do not understand either oil supply and how it works, nor do they understand trading and how it works...as for the expertise of Capital Hill, remind me what they are experts at ? Methinks, pandering and little else.

Monte

07-22-2008, 01:47 PM

The whole idea is really simple if you think about it. The oil companies found out through Katrina that people will ***** about it, but pay higher prices for fuel.

Ric

07-22-2008, 02:07 PM

okay we dont need to argue more about the global warming hoax. You comprehend supply and demand yet you use the analogy that increasing world oil supply is like giving alcohol to alcoholics....

Nobody has given us any oil.

The market says, let the alcoholic drink himself to death at market prices if that's his choice.

Your analogy seems to point more toward your belief that the world demand for oil is improper or immoral in some way. NOT your words, just what your comment seems to say.

Maybe it's my layman perspective but that comment just does not sound like a sound economist to me.

No, not at all what I am saying. First, let's back up. The science says (and I know you guys don't like it) that we are experiencing global warming and it is caused by carbon emmissions. Now, I have never said that the environment has ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Just that trying to extend oil's run is folly BOTH in terms of available supply, and in terms of the environment.

To be clear, the environment has nothing to do with our ability to find and produce oil. It is just one additional argument against that course of action. As is the fact that you are sending 700 billion dollars per to foreign countries to fund your oil defecit.

The main probelm in terms of drilling is one of scale. The scale of what you can find, and when it will come into production is miniature as compared to the decline rates of existing monster fields and the relentles growth in global demand.

Just one more point for TX-X30, go back and read the thread. I never said thirty years to affect supply. I did say that it would take roughly until 2030, so 22 years, meaning, approximately twenty years or so. I said that because, it takes about 10 years get a field into production. These oil fields don't just pump at peak production, that takes about 10 more years, and then they go into decline. While there are exceptions, that is the most common case.

Anyhow, no agenda, either political or social.

Jorski

07-22-2008, 02:16 PM

Rick,

Let's keep this simple.

The world is running out of oil while global demand is increasing. Finding additonal oil is becoming more and more difficult, and more and more expensive (both in terms of dollars AND energy required). All the while, the largest oil fields in the word are in decline, they are producing less oil than before.

Disregard the environment. I hope that is a clear enough statement.

Ric

07-22-2008, 02:39 PM

Rick,

Let's keep this simple.

The world is running out of oil while global demand is increasing. Finding additonal oil is becoming more and more difficult, and more and more expensive (both in terms of dollars AND energy required). All the while, the largest oil fields in the word are in decline, they are producing less oil than before.

Disregard the environment. I hope that is a clear enough statement.
I can live with that.
Now, in your doomsday theory that the world is running out of oil. When?
It's clean and comfy to let the oil come from somewhere else, but if we have some here, then no matter how you slice it, adding to the supply will affect the price. How much? I won't say, maybe you know how much oil potential is here.

Adding some of our own resources to the world oil supply would also give us some protections for price fluctuation as well.

JimN

07-22-2008, 03:13 PM

"but if we have some here, then no matter how you slice it, adding to the supply will affect the price."

The big questions are A) "how much will it cost to recover this oil?" and B) "How much will we be able to sell it for?". If A>B, it's not worth doing. Until recently, it hasn't been worth doing all of the extra work to recover what could come from most of the US wells and fields. Now that it sells for >$120/bbl, it is.

I still think there's some cahooting going on. I's like a good answer as to why the increases occurred in the past two years and not sooner. It's not as if China suddenly started importing it. Why can't they buy it from Russia? They have some of the biggest fields on the planet. Not that I want those two doing much together, but they could at least buy it from a neighbor and save on shipping.

"How much for cash?"

Jorski

07-22-2008, 03:19 PM

Now, in your doomsday theory that the world is running out of oil. When?

This is important. There is probably 50-100 years of oil in the ground..that is NOT the problem.

The problem is our inability to increase the total amount that we can take out of the ground daily, weekly or monthly. In other words, the flow rate.

As the monster fields in the North Sea, Russia, Mexico etc., go into decline they produce less oil each year. This is occuring while demand continues to grow.

If you prefer to look at it domestically, US oil production has been in decline since the 1970's. US domestic production has roughly fallen in half since then, and will continue to fall. While you are correct that additional supply is downward force on price, the amount of offset is tiny and inconsequential.

If you want to look at the scale of impact in further detail, all of this stuff is available from th IEA. You will be disappointed.

Jorski

07-22-2008, 03:30 PM

I'd like a good answer as to why the increases occurred in the past two years and not sooner. It's not as if China suddenly started importing it. Why can't they buy it from Russia? They have some of the biggest fields on the planet. Not that I want those two doing much together, but they could at least buy it from a neighbor and save on shipping.

A) That is because demand increased beyond supply...makes prices go up. China has been increasing its' own consumption by 9%-10% per year.

B) Russia's oil production is in decline while their domestic economy is growing rapidly, increasing their own domestic demand. They are consuming more and more of their own declining production. Similar stories all over the world.

Ric

07-22-2008, 04:23 PM

This is important. There is probably 50-100 years of oil in the ground..that is NOT the problem.

The problem is our inability to increase the total amount that we can take out of the ground daily, weekly or monthly. In other words, the flow rate.

As the monster fields in the North Sea, Russia, Mexico etc., go into decline they produce less oil each year. This is occuring while demand continues to grow.

If you prefer to look at it domestically, US oil production has been in decline since the 1970's. US domestic production has roughly fallen in half since then, and will continue to fall. While you are correct that additional supply is downward force on price, the amount of offset is tiny and inconsequential.

If you want to look at the scale of impact in further detail, all of this stuff is available from th IEA. You will be disappointed.
I am no expert on domestic production but since you mentioned it, how much of the decline of domestic oil production that you found was due to the fallout of the late s70s early 80s glut of production? Oil price fell quite alot then, remember? Domestic production fell literally on it's face, remember???? I damn sure do... (Houston kid)

ProTour X9

07-22-2008, 04:54 PM

IF we stop using oil, what next???? ( I'm trying to redirect the thread somewhat)

bbymgr

07-22-2008, 07:08 PM

Maybe if the Oil Companies spent more money exploration instead of just boosting there Stock prices, there might be a chance to get more production. What you are saying Jorski is, anything they find now won't be usable for 10 years or so and won't even make a dent in the shortage so why even look. I contend that if you don't look then we will run out. No one knows if there are other sources out there or not, so why not look instead waiting around for "doomsday". The 5 bigest oil companies last year spent 55% of their profits on stock buybacks and dividends. They spent less than 10% on exploration. For a little reference they only spent 1% of there profits on stock buybacks and dividends in 1993. The CEO's have there bonus and pay structure centered around Stock price........ so why should they care about spending more on exploration?

JimN

07-22-2008, 07:30 PM

"IF we stop using oil, what next???? "

I don't think we need to stop completely, we just need to use alternatives when they're available. The world uses a butt load of oil to make plastics, of various types. If we want to be able to keep doing this, a certain amount will have to be allocated to that. There are large coal reserves, but it's not a particularly clean way to generate the heat used. Personally, I don't think there's any good reason for new homes in sunny areas to be built without a solar power system that could provide all of the energy for lighting and small devices. The largest expenses in these systems are the storage batteries and panels, but they haven't stopped improving these, so the value is improving. More geothermal HVAC systems would help immensely if home heating oil was a thing of the past, or if its use could be reduced.

Industrial customers need to be more proactive WRT energy consumption. Part of the problem here is that, by generally being "for profit", if the spend money of energy, they pass that cost on to the customer. As an example, Johnson Controls is adding to their world HQ and part of that will include total reliance on geothermal HVAC for the whole facility. They have been drilling for this since early last month. Since they're one of, if not the largest, makers of batteries globally, they will also be using a lot of solar energy for electricity and water heating. It only makes sense, but it costs money to change.

TX.X-30 fan

07-22-2008, 07:41 PM

IF we stop using oil, what next???? ( I'm trying to redirect the thread somewhat)

Nothing.

38015

Not to worry if we run short we can make canada the 51st. state. :D

snork

07-22-2008, 08:16 PM

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay More!!!
Doesn't matter where or when the drilling is happening the Big Oil companies will dictates the price you pay at the pumps.
The cost of crude doesn't really affect what you or I will pay for fuel. Fact: cost of crude increases cost of fuel increases, cost of crude decreases and cost of fuel stay the same or drops a penny or two. *** get the government to start regulating the cost you or I pay for fuel and not let the gas companies make Billions (working near Trillions) of dollars from consumers here in America.
Too bad a President was elected that has major ties in the oil market.:mad:
Yes we need to start on alternative energy but the cost of it will be untouchable as well.
Keep drilling and pulling the fossil fuel from this earth and one day it will run dry and maybe we'll implode.:rolleyes:

Ric

07-22-2008, 08:19 PM

Not to worry if we run short we can make canada the 51st. state. :D
haaaaaaaaaaaaa

Ric

07-22-2008, 08:20 PM

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 8p Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay More!!!
Doesn't matter where or when the drilling is happening the Big Oil companies will dictates the price you pay at the pumps.
The cost of crude doesn't really affect what you or I will pay for fuel. Fact: cost of crude increases cost of fuel increases, cost of crude decreases and cost of fuel stay the same or drops a penny or two. *** get the government to start regulating the cost you or I pay for fuel and not let the gas companies make Billions (working near Trillions) of dollars from consumers here in America.
Too bad a President was elected that has major ties in the oil market.:mad:
Yes we need to start on alternative energy but the cost of it will be untouchable as well.
Keep drilling and pulling the fossil fuel from this earth and one day it will run dry and maybe we'll implode.:rolleyes:

JimN

07-22-2008, 08:24 PM

"Fact: cost of crude increases cost of fuel increases, cost of crude decreases and cost of fuel stay the same or drops a penny or two"

Uh, no. It went down $.14 on Friday and another nickel yesterday, here.

snork

07-22-2008, 08:43 PM

In Dallas the average price of gas was $3.95 gal. July 7th and then on July 14 it was $3.99 and today it's $3.92, tomorrow who knows? Its all based on Greed and whatever you or I are willing to shell out. Gas is one commodity that we cannot live without and the gas companies know it.

Ric

07-23-2008, 09:42 AM

In Dallas the average price of gas was $3.95 gal. July 7th and then on July 14 it was $3.99 and today it's $3.92, tomorrow who knows? Its all based on Greed and whatever you or I are willing to shell out. Gas is one commodity that we cannot live without and the gas companies know it.
dammit we should regulate them more

Jorski

07-23-2008, 01:20 PM

The Commodity and Futures Trading Commission has just released a report on oil prices that does a great job of explaining the basics of the oil market. This report is a very detailed 45 pager, and I would reccommend it to all of you. This report is written by a government agency, not a foreign government or an oil company.

Here is a portion of the Executive Summary:

The Task Force’s preliminary assessment is that current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between January 2003 and June 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors. During this same period, activity on the crude oil futures market – as measured by the number of contracts outstanding, trading activity, and the number of traders – has increased significantly. While these increases broadly coincided with the run-up in crude oil prices, the Task Force’s preliminary analysis to date does not support the proposition that speculative activity has systematically driven changes in oil prices.
The world economy has expanded at its fastest pace in decades, and that strong growth has translated into substantial increases in the demand for oil, particularly from emerging market countries. On the supply side, the production of oil has responded sluggishly, compounded by production shortfalls associated with geopolitical unrest in countries with large oil reserves. As it is very difficult to rely on substitutes for oil in the short term, very large price increases have occurred as the market balances supply and demand.

I'd bet that if the US hadn't been using China as it's manufacturing base, they would never have ramped up their oil use as much as they have. Their nuveau riche are buying Mercedes, Bentleys and other extremely expensive cars at an amazing rate and if they're buying these cars, they can't be staying in a little hut, in a small village. They're consuming like drunken sailors on shore leave, or more accurately, like Americans.

Jesus_Freak

07-23-2008, 02:39 PM

...The science says (and I know you guys don't like it) that we are experiencing global warming and it is caused by carbon emmissions.

That is a negative, captain!

1. Surface heating, or accumulation = in - out + production
2. "In" for earth's atmosphere includes things like energy flux from the sun and from the turbulent volume of molten rock below the surface whose churning is driven by complex interaction between polar magnetics and natural convection. These two major energy suppliers give the atmosphere energy levels that fluctuate large amounts (relative to their means) on time scales of centuries.
3. "Out" obviously involves losses from radiation from the surface to space. This is where "greenhouse" gases come into play...our ability to lose heat. What is the most abundant greenhouse gas? Well, it is good old fashioned water vapor. Its global averages and fluctuations are out of our control.
4. "Production"? Humans only "produce" energy (and mass) through nuclear reactions; otherwise it is simply shifted around or conserved. This is a neglible contribution to the energy balance.
5. Therefore, accumulation must be increasing because of something changing in "in" or "out". Which could be changing the most?

Given that the relative fluctuations from the "in" are vastly larger than those of "out" and that CO derivatives are only a fraction of "out" part of the balance...We dont really mean squat.

Consider the following hypothetical (and not completely parallel) example:

Your boat is overheating, and you typically dont control and do not know your engine speed or coolant circulation rate. The engine speed could be anything from 750 RPM to 7500 RPM. The coolant circulatory flow could be anywhere from 10 GPM to 100 GPM. All you have control over is a small adder stream of coolant to the engine, which can be set to add from 0.1 to 0.2 GPM of coolant from a cold external source. Would you waste time enforcing rules and implementing advanced control systems regarding the control of the adder stream? That depends....can it help you get elected? ;)

Jorski

07-23-2008, 03:40 PM

Given that the relative fluctuations from the "in" are vastly larger than those of "out" and that CO derivatives are only a fraction of "out" part of the balance...We dont really mean squat.

From the American Physical Society...(that is scientists who specialize in physics)

APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

As for your assertion that our out put is too small to matter, CO2 concentrations are measured in parts per million; methane and nitrous oxide are measured in parts per billion. You know, like very small amounts? The earth's surface is heated by light energy from the sun. That energy bounces off the surface of the earth rebounding upwards (outwards actually) as among other things, infra-red radiation. Green house gases reflect infra-red back down, limiting the heat that can escape. It takes very small changes to mess up the balance of in versus heat out.

By the way, your "we don't mean squat" conclusion, is funny in that, you are really saying that hundreds of thousands of scientist just didn't know how big or small our output is. Frankly, that is just silly.

JimN

07-23-2008, 04:10 PM

"The earth's surface is heated by light energy from the sun."

Remembering that light is electromagnetic, it also affects the Earth's core, which is magnetic. Correlations have been made to increased solar activity and climate. Also, with volcanic activity being constant since at least '83, that has to matter. Add the amount of formerly forested land and the lack of carbon removed by the trees, more vehicles throwing off heat, more people throwing off heat (I think it's the fault of runners and athletes), asphalt roads and more buildings that don't absorb the sun's rays, there's no way to know exactly how much effect the CO2 has unless everything is audited and being accurate isn't really possible since people and animals die, trees grow and buildings fall.

Infra-red is reflected back and IR reflective surfaces bounce it back up. They work together but the Earth has the amazing ability to correct its fluctuations, over time.

The reality is, the Earth and environment don't give a rat's butt about this. Humans care because they're afraid to die and suffer. Animals are wary and if threatened directly, they feel fear but they don't dwell on it. They learn how to avoid danger (if they're lucky) and deal with death when it happens. We do all of the above and when we make people aware that something "could" happen to cause their demise, they get all moist and quivery. And some get prizes, money and elected.

The basic fact that we are just another animal on the planet has definitely escaped the minds of most people. Boil it down, to the rest of the universe, we don't mean squat.

ProTour X9

07-23-2008, 04:15 PM

This is where "greenhouse" gases come into play...our ability to lose heat. What is the most abundant greenhouse gas? Well, it is good old fashioned water vapor. Its global averages and fluctuations are out of our control.

So what do Hydrogen powered cars produce??? IIRC:Water:)

JimN

07-23-2008, 04:19 PM

Maybe if we plant a forest of really big trees, they would remove the carbon from the CO2 and we could......

Never mind, they'd just be cut down so we could have fast food beef. And crops could be grown in soil that is less suitable than what the crops really need.

Gonzo

07-23-2008, 04:29 PM

Never mind, they'd just be cut down so we could have fast food beef.

Just last night i got a splinter at Wendy's, I was wondering how that happend.

JimN

07-23-2008, 04:40 PM

"Just last night i got a splinter at Wendy's, I was wondering how that happened."

Barring the possibility that someone hid a toothpick in it, you may have been the unwitting victim of an assassination attempt, using "Third World Beef".

Ric

07-23-2008, 06:06 PM

I'd bet that if the US hadn't been using China as it's manufacturing base, they would never have ramped up their oil use as much as they have. Their nuveau riche are buying Mercedes, Bentleys and other extremely expensive cars at an amazing rate and if they're buying these cars, they can't be staying in a little hut, in a small village. They're consuming like drunken sailors on shore leave, or more accurately, like Americans.
You didn't hear it from me, but it won't be long til that house of cards takes a fall too..... Soon, the americanized chinese will have run up their costs of living and costs of operation to the point they are no longer ridiculously competitive and voila, manufacturing is happening in the US again.

wakeX2wake

07-23-2008, 06:14 PM

You didn't hear it from me, but it won't be long til that house of cards takes a fall too..... Soon, the americanized chinese will have run up their costs of living and costs of operation to the point they are no longer ridiculously competitive and voila, manufacturing is happening in the US again.

THANK YOU... THATS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG... THE MORE MONEY THEY MAKE THE MORE THEY WILL BECOME EDUCATED AND THE MORE "AMERICANIZED" THEY WILL BE...

i hope everyone will have a good globally warmed day... i'm leaving my fossil fuel consuming place of work and going home to my non-ecofriendly home... where i'll most likely consume alcohol from a recyclable container that will most likely be land filled... but hey i'm stimulating the economy

ProTour X9

07-23-2008, 06:45 PM

manufacturing is happening in the US again.

All the good stuff is made in the good ole USA. Sure it may cost more but you're paying your own people for a quality product.

I dunno just a thought:twocents:

Bruce

07-23-2008, 06:50 PM

You gentlemen are way over my head. However I put a few quid down on an operation in jorski's back yard. I.E. COSWF Canadian oil and trust. in 2003 they could barely turn a profit. In 2008 they are hemorrhaging cash! They extract oil from sand tars. All of their extraction cost are now paid far, the refineries are built etc. and every barrel is now profitable! "My goodness it is not practical to get oil from sand tars and it would take 20 years etc.!" Maybe but I made an obscene profit on something that wouldn't work and couldn't be done! But there again this thread is about drilling for oil and they are mining it!

Jorski

07-23-2008, 06:53 PM

What is the most abundant greenhouse gas? Well, it is good old fashioned water vapor. Its global averages and fluctuations are out of our control.

Wish it were true, that it was "out of our control". J-Freak, care to take a guess about what just happens to increase the amount of water that our atmosphere can hold ?? Yup, turns out that it's CO2.

Remembering that light is electromagnetic, it also affects the Earth's core, which is magnetic. Correlations have been made to increased solar activity and climate.

Jimn,

Yes there have been many of these studies; in fact they suggest that about 10% of the change in the average temperature we have experience is because of this.

You guys may be surprised by this fact: the scientists who study global warming are aware of the sun !;)

jraben8

07-23-2008, 07:01 PM

In Dallas the average price of gas was $3.95 gal. July 7th and then on July 14 it was $3.99 and today it's $3.92, tomorrow who knows? Its all based on Greed and whatever you or I are willing to shell out. Gas is one commodity that we cannot live without and the gas companies know it.

Yep, paid $3.78 last night... I don't get it...:noface:

ProTour X9

07-23-2008, 07:09 PM

You guys may be surprised tby this fact: the scientists who study global warming are aware of the sun !

The suns just a myth8p:D:rolleyes:;)

JimN

07-23-2008, 07:11 PM

"the scientists who study global warming are aware of the sun"

And the politicians who can get everyone all lathered up, then repeat someone else's plan try to look like they saved us.

As I have said before, there's no way we aren't responsible for part of the changes, but to date, we haven't really made much of an attempt to change our ways, either. Finding new oil reserves doesn't cure that problem, it only delays the drop dead date for that particular fuel. What amazes me is that we don't use solar for residential use when it comes to lighting and other things that don't use high-demand motors, pumps and heating elements. I can buy a solar attic fan for $250 but a regular one is only $50. The reasons we don't use and demand more development in this area is that the up-front costs are high and we want our payback now, dammit! We're awfully impatient, when it comes to wanting things.

Jorski

07-23-2008, 09:00 PM

What amazes me is that we don't use solar for residential use when it comes to lighting and other things that don't use high-demand motors, pumps and heating elements. I can buy a solar attic fan for $250 but a regular one is only $50. The reasons we don't use and demand more development in this area is that the up-front costs are high and we want our payback now, dammit! We're awfully impatient, when it comes to wanting things.

Well said Jimn!!!

Ric

07-24-2008, 10:05 AM

Wish it were true, that it was "out of our control". J-Freak, care to take a guess about what just happens to increase the amount of water that our atmosphere can hold ?? Yup, turns out that it's CO2.

Jimn,

Yes there have been many of these studies; in fact they suggest that about 10% of the change in the average temperature we have experience is because of this.

You guys may be surprised by this fact: the scientists who study global warming are aware of the sun !;)
You climate change alarmists and Algore let us know when you can stop hurricanes . Don't ask me to do it. YOU do it.

JimN

07-24-2008, 10:18 AM

"You climate change alarmists and Algore let us know when you can stop hurricanes ."

Ya know, if they took a really big ship and lined up a bunch of those big barn fans, I bet they could decrease the wind speed of a hurricane. Maybe an aircraft carrier with all of the jets lined up so their exhaust facing the hurricane. I bet Algore didn't think of that one.

I want my prize now.

Monte

07-24-2008, 10:45 AM

Hey Jim! You gave me an Idea! Lets make a really big ship, affix a bunch of windmills, Fill it with batteries/ power resovoirs.. Hey for that matter lets make a bunch of ships. Stick them in the middle of a all hurricaines, harness the wind power, bring them back to land plug em in and make trillions...

JimN

07-24-2008, 11:46 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_bi_ge/arctic_oil

SkiDog

07-24-2008, 12:07 PM

I saw an ad on TV yesterday for a group thats trying to save the Polar Bears from extinction due to global warming! Please send money, the bears need it! Where were these idiots when the dinosaurs were around?

Jorski

07-24-2008, 12:48 PM

Sobering part of the story in Jimn's link:

At today's current consumption rate of 86 million barrels a day, the yet-to-be-tapped oil in the Arctic would supply global demand for three years

And that supply would come out in about 10 years from now and be pumped out over approximately a 20 year period. The annual impact would be quite small.

TX.X-30 fan

07-24-2008, 01:23 PM

CO2 is our friend, and actually very good for mother earth. So there all you chicken-littles.

Jesus_Freak

07-24-2008, 02:05 PM

From the American Physical Society...(that is scientists who specialize in physics)...

Did they add the emphasis or is that yours? Are you implying that I, and the research community with which I am associated, do not specialize in physics?

As for your assertion that our out put is too small to matter, CO2 concentrations are measured in parts per million; methane and nitrous oxide are measured in parts per billion. You know, like very small amounts? The earth's surface is heated by light energy from the sun. That energy bounces off the surface of the earth rebounding upwards (outwards actually) as among other things, infra-red radiation. Green house gases reflect infra-red back down, limiting the heat that can escape. It takes very small changes to mess up the balance of in versus heat out.

PPM, PPB...totally irrelavent. Small oscillations in small numbers are still small. For example 20% osciallation about the mean is still 20% whether the mean is 0.01 or 1000.

By the way, your "we don't mean squat" conclusion, is funny in that, you are really saying that hundreds of thousands of scientist just didn't know how big or small our output is. Frankly, that is just silly.

If they all agreed, then I would not have posted. 8p Let us separate cause from correlation. I think many would agree there is a correlation in the emissions and the average temperature (how that is even measured is a point of great debate). This does not signify cause. Yes, some views are indeed silly, arent they?

TMCNo1

07-24-2008, 02:15 PM

I saw an ad on TV yesterday for a group thats trying to save the Polar Bears from extinction due to global warming! Please send money, the bears need it! Where were these idiots when the dinosaurs were around?

Now you tell me what polar bears are gonna spend all that money on, Strawberry Snow Cones?:confused::cool::D

Ric

07-24-2008, 02:29 PM

Now you tell me what polar bears are gonna spend all that money on, Strawberry Snow Cones?:confused::cool::D
I have your answer

CHANGE.......... OPPORTUNITY...... HEALTHCARE.......

Jorski

07-24-2008, 02:34 PM

PPM, PPB...totally irrelavent. Small oscillations in small numbers are still small. For example 20% osciallation about the mean is still 20% whether the mean is 0.01 or 1000.

Not at all irrelevant, as the amount of heat/light energy coming in is large, and the amount of heat going out is also large, therefore small changes in the amount ir being reflected back can be considerable, even with small oscillations. Particularly, when as you point out that water vapour is a significant "greenhouse gas" and the water carrying capacity of our atmosphere increases with small increases in CO2.

BTW, not saying anything negative about the capabilities of you or your reasearch group, simply pointing out for the rest of the board who American Physical Society is comprised of.

Let us separate cause from correlation. I think many would agree there is a correlation in the emissions and the average temperature (how that is even measured is a point of great debate). This does not signify cause.

No doubt that correlation doesn't prove causality. That being said, I do clearly recall the taobacco lobby invoking that very same claim for more than thirty years..who knew at the time that cancer didn't cause smoking ?!

Ric

07-24-2008, 03:09 PM

I mean.... Algore did invent the internet. and the global warming hoax. :rofl:

JimN

07-24-2008, 03:10 PM

One point I'd like to make is that the average temperature is the average since humans have been tracking it. For all of the science about this, the number of years we can be sure about is a minute sample. There's so much conflicting information that, since everybody likes to see their name in print (unless it's the obits or police blotter, and even then...) that I see no way to be sure to a great degree. Some say we're still coming out of the Little Ice Age, some say we have never been this warm (which I find improbable), others say it's the end of days and still others say it's no big deal. The Atlantic Elevator currents have been suggested as a way that the Earth has cooled itself in the past, recent volcanic activity has been shown to be melting the Antarctic ice shelf and there's always undersea volcanic activity, so that has to be factored in. The great bodies of water are our air conditioner. Let's use them.

What I have a huge problem with, is people making their view sound convincing enough that people blindly jump on their wagon, regardless of whether they're correct, or not. This leads everyone from the facts and could make the real situation go on indefinitely. Scientists want tenure. That makes it plausible that some unscrupulous members of that community could come up with a theory whose arguments are made so convincingly that they immediately create a career. When that doesn't pan out, they come up with a slight change that, coincidently, needs to be verified.

That takes care of the new house and cars, now what about the boat and vacation home?

JimN

07-24-2008, 03:11 PM

"Algore did invent the internet. and the global warming hoax."

On Futurama, his head made a comment about "when I invented the environment...", so it HAS to be true.

Jorski

07-24-2008, 03:19 PM

Well, I guess it is meaningless that the science academies of the G8 + 5 released their joint statement on climate change...because they all want tenure (there happens to be no such thing at these academies, tenure is at universities)...

Full report in the following link:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf

The science academies involved include (among others):

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
Science Council of Japan,
Deutshe Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina Germany,
Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Indian National Science Academy India,
Academie des Sciences France,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy,
Royal Society of Canada,
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias Mexico,
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, Brazil, and the
Academy of Science of South Africa

Ric

07-24-2008, 03:24 PM

kyoto fan jorski ?
Well, I guess it is meaningless that the science academies of the G8 + 5 released their joint statement on climate change...because they all want tenure (there happens to be no such thing at these academies, tenure is at universities)...

Full report in the following link:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf

The science academies involved include (among others):

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
Science Council of Japan,
Deutshe Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina Germany,
Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Indian National Science Academy India,
Academie des Sciences France,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy,
Royal Society of Canada,
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias Mexico,
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias, Brazil, and the
Academy of Science of South Africa

Jorski

07-24-2008, 06:00 PM

Look, Kyoto has plenty of problems, and so do all other potential solutions. That being said, I am really only referring to the state of the science on the topic with regards to the existence of Global Warming and its' cause.:twocents:

Don't really think we would get very far on this board talking about potential solutions.:confused:

cbryan70

07-24-2008, 06:11 PM

After all of this talk about global warming and the shortages of oil that are forthcoming, I truly am glad that I am going boating tonight and burning up the 4+ dollar gallon of gas.

Ric

07-24-2008, 07:47 PM

I just want algore to stop the hurricane

Jesus_Freak

07-25-2008, 12:28 PM

One point I'd like to make is that the average temperature is the average since humans have been tracking it. For all of the science about this, the number of years we can be sure about is a minute sample. There's so much conflicting information that, since everybody likes to see their name in print (unless it's the obits or police blotter, and even then...) that I see no way to be sure to a great degree. Some say we're still coming out of the Little Ice Age, some say we have never been this warm (which I find improbable), others say it's the end of days and still others say it's no big deal. The Atlantic Elevator currents have been suggested as a way that the Earth has cooled itself in the past, recent volcanic activity has been shown to be melting the Antarctic ice shelf and there's always undersea volcanic activity, so that has to be factored in. The great bodies of water are our air conditioner. Let's use them.

Yes!

"Temperature" not only varies greatly in physical space coordinates (surface depth, surface lat/long., atmospheric boundary layer in 3D, upper atmosphere in 3D, etc.), but it varies in time on century time scales. And we have been measuring it (how accurately?) where and for how long???

JimN

07-25-2008, 12:44 PM

What this amounts to is looking at something gray, though a microscope, and saying that you're certain it's an elephant. The samples aren't a complete set and the testing methods and criteria have changed over the years, which is not good science.

They talk about the ice caps melting and act like they know for a fact that the caps have always been there. Well, that can't be. Ice is a state and ice starts out as either water vapor or water and then, through heat loss, it freezes. The magnetic poles have reversed and the Earth's axis isn't exactly stationary, so we may be in a cycle where the axis is more apt to cause the average temperature to be higher. Remember the Anasazi, of the SW? They left, partially because of droughts and that was only 700-800 years ago. I don't remember hearing anything about Global Warming when they were talking about the ozone hole. Why is that? If the rhetoric is observed, both were happening at the same time. We banned CFCs and the next thing I heard was that the ozone hole may be cyclical. How convenient.

When alternate conclusions are drawn years from now, what will the Doomsday types harp on?

Still, I won't say humans aren't arrogant, self-serving, often ignorant, voracious consumers of everything they see and imagine.

In the words of Bob, "Gimme, gimme, gimme! I need, I need, I need!"

Jesus_Freak

07-25-2008, 12:54 PM

Not at all irrelevant, as the amount of heat/light energy coming in is large, and the amount of heat going out is also large, therefore small changes in the amount ir being reflected back can be considerable, even with small oscillations. Particularly, when as you point out that water vapour is a significant "greenhouse gas" and the water carrying capacity of our atmosphere increases with small increases in CO2.

Pretend we lived in a world (or open system) at thermal equilibrium and STEADY state. There is a balance of large amounts of heat in at fixed values, large amounts of heat out at fixed values, and small values of reflecting components (PPM or PPB, doesnt matter). The average temperature (neglecting other forms of energy) is constant for this world.

Now picture a world at thermal equilibrium and QUASI-steady state. Things are fluctuating about their respective means but are still statistically stationary. There are large sources of heat in, all fluctuating about their means. There are large losses of heat, ditto. There are also small components (PPM or PPB) of reflection moving about their means.

The complicating factor for this system is that all of the sources/sinks/reflections do not fluctuate at the same time scales. As a result, the thermal balance cycles. Sometimes the system average temperature is rising, sometimes falling.

At any instant in time, the temperature-time derivative will be dictated by the variable that is deviating the farthest from its mean. This is common knowledge, but the point of debate is whether solar activity is deviating farther from its mean relative to greenhouse components. I am not saying small numbers are not significant; I am talking about standard deviations relative to means (AKA coefficient of variance). Reports from my colleagues indicate that the solar activity is dominant.

JimN

07-25-2008, 01:05 PM

The comments about steady/quasi steady state, mean variations and the many variables makes me wonder if this hubbub is due to the basic fact that humans like to control things and we can't actually control the environment. Can we affect it? Somewhat. Can we control it? Nope.

TX.X-30 fan

07-25-2008, 01:07 PM

I could not have said it better JF. Well actually I could not have even cut and pasted that. :D:D

Ric

07-25-2008, 02:17 PM

The comments about steady/quasi steady state, mean variations and the many variables makes me wonder if this hubbub is due to the basic fact that humans like to control things and we can't actually control the environment. Can we affect it? Somewhat. Can we control it? Nope.

STOP THE HURRICANES AL !

mcdoon

07-25-2008, 02:50 PM

I could not have said it better JF. Well actually I could not have even cut and pasted that. :D:D

TX, you're speaking for all of us in the "ignorant but still like to see a good fight" crowd. :D Plus, I'll do anything to keep those snake oilers from raising my taxes to stop global warming. Rip 'em a new one JF!

Ric

07-25-2008, 03:04 PM

TX, you're speaking for all of us in the "ignorant but still like to see a good fight" crowd. :D Plus, I'll do anything to keep those snake oilers from raising my taxes to stop global warming. Rip 'em a new one JF!
speak for yourself:cool:

TX.X-30 fan

07-25-2008, 03:08 PM

Thank-you global warming we go 2 inches of rain from dolly.

Jesus_Freak

07-25-2008, 03:24 PM

TX, you're speaking for all of us in the "ignorant but still like to see a good fight" crowd. :D Plus, I'll do anything to keep those snake oilers from raising my taxes to stop global warming. Rip 'em a new one JF!

I am simply in the business of speaking the truth (with an occasional joke). I am on no particular "side". If the data supported, with certainty, that the human existence mattered (in the energy balance), then I would stake a claim there. Right now, as a species, we dont even know what to measure, much less set global policy based on those measures.

mcdoon

07-25-2008, 03:36 PM

speak for yourself:cool:

Sorry Ric, it's just that I feel less stupid when I have lots of company. :o

Ric

07-25-2008, 03:57 PM

Sorry Ric, it's just that I feel less stupid when I have lots of company. :o
having some fun with you.

mcdoon

07-25-2008, 04:18 PM

having some fun with you.

Yeah, I know, I knew you was just having a little fun. I could see that right off, like right off the bat and everything. (next time make it a little more obvious, would ya?) :confused:

Ric

07-25-2008, 04:41 PM

I think we all agree that Jesus Freak shall not be allowed to take the entire spotlight just cause he's a scientist and everything.....